Energy East pipeline (Nenshi vs Coderre)

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I"m surprised there isn't much debate on here about this project as it's been the major talk in Calgary over the last few days with Nenshi getting involved. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/nenshi-slams-montreal-mayor-for-opposition-to-energy-east-pipeline-1.2746505

Quote

 

 

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi has joined a growing number of politicians slamming Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre after he vowed Thursday to fight the Energy East pipeline project, which would carry crude oil from the Alberta oilsands to a refinery in New Brunswick.

Coderre said the Montreal Metropolitan Community, which represents 82 municipalities, decided unanimously to fight the project because the economic benefits for Quebec would be small compared to the possible clean-up costs of a spill.

 

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, left, wants Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre to support the Energy East pipeline project.

Nenshi told CTV’s Power Play that Coderre is simply wrong about a project, which he says has economic, safety and environmental benefits.

“This is a pipeline that already goes to Montreal,” Nenshi said. “This is a project to modernize it, to bring it up to even better standards.”

Nenshi said the alternative is to ship more oil by rail, “and Quebec knows the dangers of oil by rail, tragically,” referring to the 2013 Lac-Megantic rail disaster that killed 47 people.

Nenshi also pointed out that Energy East is preferable because “when you fill up your tank, that’s not Canadian energy filling up your tank because of the lack of pipeline capacity.”

“That’s oil that comes from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. It comes by freighter. The freighter has come up the St. Lawrence Seaway,” he said, referring to the shipping route that passes by Montreal.

The pipeline is supported by all three Alberta party leaders: NDP Premier Rachel Notley, PC Party interim leader Ric McIver and Wildrose Leader Brian Jean, who was particularly angry Thursday.

"While Mr. Coderre dumps a billion litres of raw sewage directly into his waterways and benefits from billions in equalization payments, his opposition to the Energy East pipeline is nothing short of hypocritical," Jean said, according to a statement.

"Montreal buys millions of barrels of foreign oil from dictatorships, but it is rejecting oil from their friends in Confederation. It's disgraceful!” Jean’s statement went on.

Jean said the project “will benefit all of Canada and will improve our GDP by $55 billion.”

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called it a “sad day for our country,” and made similar arguments about the safety of the project and Quebec’s willingness to spite western provinces.

“The constituents of Quebec municipalities will benefit to the tune of $10 billion in equalization payments this year,” Wall wrote on his Facebook wall. “For the better part of the last decade the western Canadian energy sector and western Canadian taxpayers have supported a great portion of these transfer payments as well as the Canadian economy.”

“Is it too much to expect that these Quebec municipal leaders would respond to this reality with generous support for a pipeline that supports the very sector that has supported them?” Wall went on.

Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose told reporters in Winnipeg Wednesday that she wants Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and Liberal Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to speak out in favour of the project, which would also run through Ontario.

“(Trudeau) seems to have a lot of influence with Kathleen Wynne and she is, right now, one of the hold-ups on the Energy East pipeline,” Ambrose said. “So can he use his influence to please help us with Energy East?”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not said whether he supports Energy East, insisting that a better environmental review process is needed before he can commit to pipeline projects.

However, the Liberal party’s campaign co-chair Dan Gagnier stepped down late in last year’s election campaign after it was revealed he was advising TransCanada on how to lobby the new government on Energy East.

A spokesperson from Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said Thursday that “the Government of Canada welcomes the views of municipal leaders regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board pipeline hearing process.”

The minister’s office added that, “the government recognizes the importance of new infrastructure development but has also been clear that any development must occur in an environmentally sustainable manner.”

“We are committed to restoring credibility to environmental assessments and the NEB; ensuring decisions are based on science, facts and evidence and work in partnership and consultation with Indigenous Peoples,” the statement went on.

TransCanada spokesman Jonathan Abecass said the company “will continue to listen to other elected leaders in Quebec and stakeholders across the province as we take their concerns and input seriously.”

TransCanada filed an amended application to the National Energy Board in December that included some 700 changes to deal with environmental concerns.

It also said it wouldn't build an oil export terminal in Quebec, after hearing widespread opposition to that part of the proposal.

The proposed pipeline would carry up to 1.1 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, N.B., using an existing pipeline to Montreal and a new pipeline east from there.

The Quebec government has not come out against the project, but has urged the company to demonstrate economic benefits for the province.

Greenpeace is among the environmental groups applauding Coderre's announcement.

 

[nucklehead]

The bad blood between AB and PQ goes waaay back. I'm just going out to pick up some popcorn.

[Blackberries]

Honestly people are getting sick of the oilsands.

 

We can't keep our heads in the sand forever. We need to give them up sooner rather than later

[ForsbergTheGreat]

36 minutes ago, Blackberries said:

Honestly people are getting sick of the oilsands.

 

We can't keep our heads in the sand forever. We need to give them up sooner rather than later

Rejecting a pipeline has little to do with demand,  the demand is there (and growning) whether we like it or not.  All rejecting a pipeline does is mean that instead of using our own countries resources we're purchasing from a foreign country.  And if were truly concerned about CO2 emissions (which oil plays such a minimal role in, but that's for another day), than we should be supporting oil from a country that has CO2 regulations in place,  We should also be supporting the most efficient way at transport oil to meet this demand, and pipelines beats rail and truck..  It also created jobs and boost our own economy, it makes zero sense for people to be against this pipeline.  

[Blackberries]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Rejecting a pipeline has little to do with demand,  the demand is there (and growning) whether we like it or not.  All rejecting a pipeline does is mean that instead of using our own countries resources we're purchasing from a foreign country.  And if were truly concerned about CO2 emissions (which oil plays such a minimal role in, but that's for another day), than we should be supporting oil from a country that has CO2 regulations in place,  We should also be supporting the most efficient way at transport oil to meet this demand, and pipelines beats rail and truck..  It also created jobs and boost our own economy, it makes zero sense for people to be against this pipeline.  

Curious,

Do you live in Alberta or BC?

If you spend enough time outside here you would know why people don't want this in their backyards .

Also please tell me how oil plays such a little role in CO2 Emissions when

 

5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO₂/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO₂/barrel

Canada couldn't even meet its own targets set by Kyoto Agreement.

Canada is more than capable of bolstering it's own economy without putting all its eggs in the dying basket.

Why do you think LNG terminals aren't being built and the cost of Oil is continuing to drop. 

The market is being flooded right now with oil and with Iran making nice, thats another source that's further going to reduce our oil value.

Why take the risk in exporting so much when it's not receiving fair market value.

Or even better take the big fat gov subsidies we give oil companies and put it towards developing alternative energy. 

Sorry but I just can't stand the mentality that Albertas Oil is the only saviour for this country it's such BS

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

6 hours ago, Blackberries said:

Curious,

Do you live in Alberta or BC?

If you spend enough time outside here you would know why people don't want this in their backyards .

Also please tell me how oil plays such a little role in CO2 Emissions when

 

5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO₂/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO₂/barrel

Canada couldn't even meet its own targets set by Kyoto Agreement.

Canada is more than capable of bolstering it's own economy without putting all its eggs in the dying basket.

Why do you think LNG terminals aren't being built and the cost of Oil is continuing to drop. 

The market is being flooded right now with oil and with Iran making nice, thats another source that's further going to reduce our oil value.

Why take the risk in exporting so much when it's not receiving fair market value.

Or even better take the big fat gov subsidies we give oil companies and put it towards developing alternative energy. 

Sorry but I just can't stand the mentality that Albertas Oil is the only saviour for this country it's such BS

 

It's not just about exporting, it's about meeting our own demands.  Eastern Canada imports oil in massive quantities from countries that have no concern for rule-of-law, human rights / dignity, or the environment (think Venezuela and such.) Fun fact. quebec imports 90% of it's crude oil from other countries.  34% of that oil is from countries like Algeria, Kazakhstan and Angolia. As population increases so does the demand for oil.  And guess how they import, by tankers.

The oil sands represent .15% of GHG. If you really want to impact the environment, don't reproduce.  Populations and feeding that population in general, plays a major role in GHG.  China produces more CO2 emissions in one day, then the entire oilsand will produces over the next 25 years.  Air travel produces 13x more GHG than oilsands.  The oil sands in canada play such a small role that even if you completely eliminated the oilsands, world wide GHG would still increase.

Also that number you presented was based on oil consumption.  Pipelines don't play an effect on demand, they are a means to fulfill that demand, internally.  The world demand increases whether or not we are a player in the market.  

Canada has already taken great strides at reducing the amount of GHG from oil sands, Canada's oilsand industry spend more than any other industry to protect the environment.  Alberta has has a carbon tax on oilsands since 2007. On top of that.  Pipelines greatly reduce the amount of C02 emissions as the majority of gases come from transportation, without pipelines we are relying on train and truck.  I mean it's funny, if someone is truly a supporter of the environment, then the argument doesn't have to be lets get rid of oil, but how can we make it more efficient.  Something pipelines is trying to do.

Sorry I can't stand the whole oilsands are the devil....

[-DLC-]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It's not just about exporting, it's about meeting our own demands.

Sure it is.

We have food here to meet our own demands but we're currently sacrificing farmland for....... 

Most decisions being made today are so the rich get richer, nothing more.  They pretty it up and put a nice bow on it, but let's face it, we can explore other options.  And, should be.  We have to start looking after the planet, too.  The land that gives us food and water...much more important than all the other stuff in the end.

China produces more CO2 emissions in one day, then the entire oilsand will produces over the next 25 years

And people have to wear masks in order to breathe.  Not a great selling point.  "Other things are worse".  Always love that argument.

 

[chon derry]

with the opposition with  the xl line to the us, opposition to the trans mountain line ,opposition to the enbridge line ,and the price of oil at 28 dollars  all the ppl opposed did,nt see this one coming ,but lately the talk about these lines has renued ,arguing that building them would spur the economy in alta, with the up coming carbon tax coming into play soon, who seen that one coming. pressure to build the lines just increased.  those hoping they,d just go away have another fight, on there hands.            ps I'm on the fence personally  just pointing out the new debate here in the north.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Sure it is.

We have food here to meet our own demands but we're currently sacrificing farmland for....... 

Most decisions being made today are so the rich get richer, nothing more.  They pretty it up and put a nice bow on it, but let's face it, we can explore other options.  And, should be.  We have to start looking after the planet, too.  The land that gives us food and water...much more important than all the other stuff in the end.

China produces more CO2 emissions in one day, then the entire oilsand will produces over the next 25 years

And people have to wear masks in order to breathe.  Not a great selling point.  "Other things are worse".  Always love that argument.

 

Maybe you missed something. Quebec imports 90% of its crude oil from foreign countries. 

 

 The china example is to show small impact the oilsands is. Removing the oilsands means so little for the improvement of ghg's. But yet there's the biggest outcry amongst it. 

[-DLC-]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Maybe you missed something. Quebec imports 90% of its crude oil from foreign countries. 

 

 The china example is to show small impact the oilsands is. Removing the oilsands means so little for the improvement of ghg's. But yet there's the biggest outcry amongst it. 

Not buying, it, sorry.  Not even a little bit.  "Small impact"?  Nope.

[Blackberries]

29 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Not buying, it, sorry.  Not even a little bit.  "Small impact"?  Nope.

Me either

Seems like opinion is influenced by what side of the Rockies your on.

To me some things are worth more than money and I don't trust any of these oil companies to hold the same view

 

http://www.ecojustice.ca/4-reasons-the-neb-should-recommend-rejecting-the-kinder-morgan-project-2/

But talking to someone who works in the oil and gas industry is like talking to wall. All of the other potential impacts will never be important as how much money they will make when taking it out of the ground. 

 

But hey let's turn BC into Ft McMurray 2 and we will all have enough to buy  boats and lifted dodge rams and live like bloody kings.

 

Who cares about Salmon or Orcas or trees or nature &^@# that stuff. There's money to be made for alberta!

[ForsbergTheGreat]

21 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Not buying, it, sorry.  Not even a little bit.  "Small impact"?  Nope.

You don't have to, the research is out there for you to find,  but ignoring the easily accessible information and taking a stance against it, is just plain ignorant.

Here i'll even point you in right direction...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/eneene/pubpub/pdf/12-0614-OS-GHG%20Emissions_eu-eng.pdf

 

[-DLC-]

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You don't have to, the research is out there for you to find,  but ignoring the easily accessible information and taking a stance against it, is just plain ignorant.

Here i'll even point you in right direction...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/eneene/pubpub/pdf/12-0614-OS-GHG%20Emissions_eu-eng.pdf

 

I guess it depends on who's doing the research and the benefit to them in that.

 

Quote

Science-based research is in everybody’s best interest because it helps achieve the goal of long-term, responsible resource development.”

Wania said the team’s research was funded by the university. He said Environment Canada is now providing money for more research to follow up on the findings.

A report published last year in the same journal found that oilsands development is polluting surrounding lakes in northern Alberta.

The federally funded research by some of Canada’s top scientists found levels of toxic hydrocarbons in six lakes between 2 1/2 and 23 times what they were before the mines were built.

The paper said while overall toxin levels remain low, trends aren’t good and some lakes are already approaching warning levels.

It said the timing of the contamination and its chemical makeup point to industrial sources.

They are now concluding that some of the research findings missed the mark.  Tip of the ice berg.

[Blackberries]

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I guess it depends on who's doing the research and the benefit to them in that.

 

They are now concluding that some of the research findings missed the mark.  Tip of the ice berg.

You said it, not me..

[-DLC-]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You said it, not me..

Well, if the choices are "research done by those likely to profit a great deal and care of little else"

and

scientific and transparent research in support of those who know there's a lot more at stake than money here

I know which one I'm believing.  Everytime, without fail.

[Ghostsof1915]

How about we do something radical like research stuff like growing algae to make fuel? Yes, we're not as sunny as California, but I'm sure there's strains of algae that would love our mild climate and grow quickly. The bonus is algae uses CO2 to grow and can use nutrients from waste water. 

You can also make algae oil and refine it to diesel, gasoline, and aviation fuel. And the by-products go into animal feed, food, or even  health and beauty products. 

We can spur whole industries, diversify our economy, and be less reliant on dirty oil or imported oil. 

 

 

[Blackberries]

We could do that. But we won't. Our government will never take that kind of leap of faith or risk until they have to.

 

Instead we have to hear from Kinder Morgan how their expansion should be approved because not many first nations even really eat salmon anymore. So it's pretty much ok to put them at risk 

 

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/neb-hearing-kinder-morgan-questions-how-much-bc-first-nation-still-eats-fish

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It's not just about exporting, it's about meeting our own demands.  Eastern Canada imports oil in massive quantities from countries that have no concern for rule-of-law, human rights / dignity, or the environment (think Venezuela and such.) Fun fact. quebec imports 90% of it's crude oil from other countries.  34% of that oil is from countries like Algeria, Kazakhstan and Angolia. As population increases so does the demand for oil.  And guess how they import, by tankers.

The oil sands represent .15% of GHG. If you really want to impact the environment, don't reproduce.  Populations and feeding that population in general, plays a major role in GHG.  China produces more CO2 emissions in one day, then the entire oilsand will produces over the next 25 years.  Air travel produces 13x more GHG than oilsands.  The oil sands in canada play such a small role that even if you completely eliminated the oilsands, world wide GHG would still increase.

Also that number you presented was based on oil consumption.  Pipelines don't play an effect on demand, they are a means to fulfill that demand, internally.  The world demand increases whether or not we are a player in the market.  

Canada has already taken great strides at reducing the amount of GHG from oil sands, Canada's oilsand industry spend more than any other industry to protect the environment.  Alberta has has a carbon tax on oilsands since 2007. On top of that.  Pipelines greatly reduce the amount of C02 emissions as the majority of gases come from transportation, without pipelines we are relying on train and truck.  I mean it's funny, if someone is truly a supporter of the environment, then the argument doesn't have to be lets get rid of oil, but how can we make it more efficient.  Something pipelines is trying to do.

Sorry I can't stand the whole oilsands are the devil....

Nicely put!

[J.I.A.H.N]

11 hours ago, Blackberries said:

Curious,

Do you live in Alberta or BC?

If you spend enough time outside here you would know why people don't want this in their backyards .

Also please tell me how oil plays such a little role in CO2 Emissions when

 

5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO₂/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO₂/barrel

Canada couldn't even meet its own targets set by Kyoto Agreement.

Canada is more than capable of bolstering it's own economy without putting all its eggs in the dying basket.

Why do you think LNG terminals aren't being built and the cost of Oil is continuing to drop. 

The market is being flooded right now with oil and with Iran making nice, thats another source that's further going to reduce our oil value.

Why take the risk in exporting so much when it's not receiving fair market value.

Or even better take the big fat gov subsidies we give oil companies and put it towards developing alternative energy. 

Sorry but I just can't stand the mentality that Albertas Oil is the only saviour for this country it's such BS

 

I am sorry, Blackberries, but I really have to question your stand. Do you not question why you drive a car, or use public transport, or even ride a bike, or wear shoes? Or for that matter, clothing of any kind, including wool? Earthlings, use fossil fuels every day, for everything.

Yes, it would be nice to have a alternative power source, but everything come with arguments, short of solar power, and growing green algae for everything else...

Like I said, I don't buy your argument, and while we are at it, why are you on your computer?

Sorry, but I hate this argument.......it is all about your and my needs

I don't have a problem with my needs, but you should question how your needs are being met. (Environmentally speaking!)